Custom-apparel makers across the state exhaled a collective sigh of relief with the apparent death of SB 162 on Sept. 1.
The bill was aimed at limiting the ways in which cannabis businesses could market themselves, including a ban on everything from apparel to billboards. Lawmakers had until Sept. 1 to extend consideration of the bill another two weeks, but opted to let it die instead.
The bill’s sponsor, Santa Monica State Sen. Ben Allen, and other supporters of SB 162—like the California Police Chiefs Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics (California)—claimed the bill was meant to protect kids from marketing that will make them want to smoke weed. Y’know, to protect the kids … like the ban on beer shirts. (Oh, wait …)
These “for the kids”-types of bills are almost impossible to defeat (What politician doesn’t want to at least appear to care about kids?), and its demise came a surprise to its sponsor.
“The Legislature in the past has wisely prohibited advertising with branded merchandise by tobacco companies, expressly because items like hats and T-shirts are known to entice kids to smoke,” Allen told the Los Angeles Times in the bill’s defense. “This was a common-sense measure to apply similar restrictions that would help prevent marijuana use by teens.”
One of the measure’s opponents was the California Cannabis Industry Association. The group claimed the limits would place an unfair financial burden on the industry by cutting off valuable revenue streams. Opponents also pointed out that marketing to kids was already sufficiently limited by Proposition 64, which was approved by voters last year.
“It’s not that our members don’t accept and support reasonable solutions to issues that are arising, but on this one, we felt Prop 64 made it pretty clear the cannabis industry could not be marketing to minors,” said CCIA outreach director Josh Drayton to Cannabis Now.
The bill could come up again next year, but the industry and manufacturers are hoping it stays dead. Banning marijuana businesses from branding themselves while generic weed shirts, hats and other merchandise are available in stores everywhere—including Walmart—would be absurdly unfair. And I’ve seen a lot more kids at Walmart than I ever have at a dispensary. (Because, well, it’s illegal for kids to be at dispensaries.)
Sorry, No Weed Deliveries by Drone in California
California’s Bureau of Cannabis Control issued 490 pages of regulations meant to regulate commercial cannabis businesses when recreational sales begin in January. Among the thousands of rules, the BCC has determined you do, in fact, need to have a weed guy—as the agency banned non-human delivery methods. It also said deliveries should be generally kept on the DL, with product kept out of view en route.
“Deliveries may be made only in person by enclosed motor vehicle. Cannabis goods may not be visible to the public during deliveries,” read the regulations.
So, no convertibles …
Delivery drivers are required to have GPS in their vehicles, which seems a little stalker-y: “Vehicles used for delivery must have a dedicated, active GPS device that enables the dispensary to identify the geographic location of the vehicle during delivery.”
The rules went on to define exactly what vehicles could and could not be used for transporting cannabis products. In a move that makes perfect sense to me, but surely struck a blow to tech geeks everywhere, drone deliveries have been ruled out. Also: canoes, trains and bikes. No air drops, either: “Cannabis goods will be required to be transported inside commercial vehicles or trailers. Transportation may not be done by aircraft, watercraft, rail, drones, human powered vehicles, or unmanned vehicles.”
For now, at least, this means no weed-bots will be buzzing around California, delivering stashes from the sky while your neighbors try to shoot them down.
While there is no indication that these policies will be changed any time soon, the state may still get blowback from non-cannabis, pro-autonomous-delivery companies like Google and Amazon. Recognizing a threat to a decades-old tradition, San Francisco bike messengers are expected to voice opposition as well.
The IE Gets Its First Licensed Dispensary!
Despite a few municipal bans, Coachella Valley residents are spoiled by the relatively high number of quality dispensaries within a few minutes’ drive. However, this is not the case for our neighbors over the mountains in the Inland Empire, where—until August—no licensed dispensaries existed.
Perris voters decided it was time to change that last November, when 77 percent of them approved Measure K, which removed the city’s ban on cannabis businesses. San Bernardino also voted to allow dispensaries last November, and issued its first permit Aug. 24.
But Perris wins the IE weed race with the opening of Green America, the city’s first licensed dispensary, on Aug. 25.
Perris voters also approved a 10 percent tax on weed businesses. According to the city attorney, that could add up to $1.2 million in new revenue to the city’s coffers each year. This could offer a boost to the struggling city of 76,000 residents, 25 percent of whom are living below the poverty line.
This tax-revenue contribution is in stark contrast to the dozen or so unlicensed shops operating in the city that pay no taxes, nor the $13,008 permit fee. To date, the city has been ineffective in shutting down these illegal shops. One would hope the city will act quickly to change that in order to protect its legit cannabis businesses, and the contributions they’ll make to the community.